One of the most notable in my Lazarus series is the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth was a large fish with an average weight of 176 pounds (80 kg) and up to 6.5 feet (2 meters) in length with unique characteristics that lived (according to learned scientists) somewhere in the Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic periods (390 million years ago). What interested scientists the most was this fish's fleshy appendages at the base of certain of his fins. These appendages must surely have represented a "transitional form", they asserted. These stubby appendages were certainly the progenitors of arms and legs (which is why they had 6 of them, bottom and top)!A "transitional form", by their definitions, is one that exhibits characteristics of two types of modern animals, and must, therefore, have been a middle species between one and the other. The keen observer will note that lately, every dinosaur "discovered" seems to have feathers! This is because scientists have altered their model (this word makes fantasy theory sound more like operable facts) to assert that the dinosaurs didn't die out at the beginning of the ice age, they merely turned into birds (Ah, I see)! On a side note, check out this article that refutes thier claims about feather evolution. So in the millions of years that it took to transition from dinosaur to bird, they merely wore arctic clothing by Canada Goose.
Anyway, the learned scientists boasted about how the discovery of the Coelacanth proved their belief that cross-species evolution did happen! Evolutionary artists even painted pictures of the Coelacanth using their fleshy fins to crawl out of the water to feed, possibly lay eggs, or just see who won the super bowl that year! Now we know that they never came anywhere close to the surface (300 - 700 feet deep).
Well, imagine their surprise (code for embarrassment) when in 1930, someone discovered a Coelacanth swimming around the
So how did this fella’ survive all this time? How come there aren't any Coelacanth fossils from those early layers of strata till the present? Shouldn't there be a consistent record of Coelacanths from then till now? Shouldn't all layers of strata from 390 million years ago till the present contain examples of the Coelacanth? And why didn't he change over the eons? Could it be that the earth is only 6-8,000 years old and he hasn't had time to change? Isn't is possible that the Bible's account of history is true, and that God's declaration in Genesis that each should produce after it's kind (which would eliminate the possibility that the Coelacanth is the progenitor of the Clydesdales [though I must admit, they do both start with a "C"])?
For scientists theories about the fossil records to be true, it is impossible for the species to have "gone silent" in the fossil records during all the years from then till now. As they do daily, they disprove evolution each time they find a Lazarus species.
Posts
4 comments:
While discussing this exciting find with some very well educated folks, I was laughed at for pronouncing it co-el'-a-canth. It might be good to advise your readers that the correct pronunciation is seal'-a-canth.
You just did. ;)
Ah dear. You've done it again. Just because as a species it may have borne mutants which later evolved into amphibians doesn't mean it itself had to die out. You've, once again, misinterpreted the theory. Why would I suggest they're difficult to find in the fossil record? Perhaps it's because the strata that they are fossilised within are at the bottom of the ocean still, and have yet to be forced upward above sea level for observation. I can assure you, that won't happen before our species dies out, as that sort of thing takes millions of years.
Also, if Earth has only existed for 6-8000 years, how come we can find evidence of human activity considerably older? The Chinese had already started learning to write more than 8,000 years ago. Aborigines in Australia were making cave paintings more than 10,000 years ago.
Ah well, it's been fun.
Regards,
Josh.
Josh, you asked, "if Earth has only existed for 6-8000 years, how come we can find evidence of human activity considerably older?". But what you should have asked was: "if Earth has only existed for 6-8000 years, how come we assert that artifacts of ancient humans are much older than that?" You see, Josh, you can't prove that it's 10,000 years old. You're using relativistic proofs.
Here's an example: If an in-store camera shows that Bill was at the store at 1:00 and at the bank at 3:00, then Bill was at the gas station at 2:00, which is found half-way between the store and the bank.
In the 3D graphical animation world, "tweening" is used to avoid having to reposition the digital character for every frame, the way you must do with claymation. You position the character standing in frame 1 and sitting in frame 150. All in-between frames (tweeners) are calculated by the computer. This methodology greatly reduces the workload on animators.
Bill was at at 2:00 where Bill was at at 2:00. Your exercise in "tweening", is of no impact to reality, though it does reduce your workload in trying to prove something for which you have no evidence.
The reason you think the cave paintings are older than 10,000 years is because you think it was found with something 10,000 years. But how was that item dated?
Again, observation, and reproduction. They are the name of the game. If you can't observe it and you can't reproduce it, then you can't prove it. You should have said "possibly as old as 10,000 years" or "may have been learning to write 8,000 years ago." These are all probability-based assertions and subject to interpretation and speculation.
Post a Comment